*Attacks*

The whitepaper sets the terms honest and attacks as per the US CFAA and UK computer crime acts. Nodes are simple to trace, this is a part of the original system we need people to understand.

Intentionally double spending in order to gain an illegal advantage is analogous to cheque fraud.

Bitcoin is a system covered within the existing legislative framework, as it is. Attacks are incredibly expensive and very simple to trace. This is the power of bitcoin, it is economic in nature and defense. Once people see that you need large systems that can be seizedy easily in order to conduct an attack, and that this also comes with civil liability, it will be that "attacks" become a thing of history.

Bitcoin is economically secured.

It uses law

Bitcoin's power is economic asymmetry

Defense is cheaper than an attack

That is why it is distributed

CSW
Jan 13, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1578951573069900?thread_ts=1578951573.069900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2097

When Code Isn't Law
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=faculty_scholarship

Page 717 - "The programmers of a copyright-resistant P2P network must balance an interest in avoiding legal liability against the competing interests of ensuring performance on a mass scale, maintaining system stability, and fostering network trust."

Developers had liability at all times.

You cannot make an illegal contract nor an illegal term in a license

An illegal term in a contract is "Void ab initio" - it never existed.

That is a separate issue - but a law is lawful until a court states it is not

It may be immoral - that is a separate issue

Contract is not about morality

CSW
Mar 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1616502135369000?thread_ts=1616502135.369000&cid=C5131HKFX

There are separate legislations here in the United Kingdom but I won't go into in detail but in the United States, the majority of states in the US have implemented the uniform commercial code.

Article 2 of the UCC governing contracts for sales of goods and other exchanges. and this also covers commodities.

Bitcoin is a commmodity.

The UCC rules concerning sales contracts are mandatory and cannot be mitigated or removed using a warranty

So, where software warranties state that the merchantability doesn't matter, this is not valid.

The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose that comes under UCC section 2-315 does not allow you to exclude parts of the software and being that the bitcoin White Paper promises protection to the buyer and not merely the possessor, this cannot be excluded.

Ownership is defined within the White Paper (p. 2, 6.)

Possession is not.

If you wonder why I have studied international law and letters of credit, why I wrote about documentary credit contracts before bitcoin,

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/commodities-types-of-contract-disputes

It becomes necessary to remember that bitcoin is a commodity. As a commodity it is covered under a variety of different acts There was always a reason for not making bitcoin an account based system

CSW
May 3, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620074377419900?thread_ts=1620074377.419900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2182

Developers may be sued for fraud when they knowingly misrepresent or withhold information from a distinct customer.[ The claims made on the website and the information in the whitepaper associated with a software program and protocol bind the developers to the delivery of the specified product.

The contract, warranty and effects of misrepresentation would typically limit financial exposure to the price of a product. In the case of Bitcoin, the end product extends into tokens that are offered as a service and commodity. Further, this form of software malfeasance may be sufficient to create a tortious liability. Tort law extends the liability that applies to the developers.

Although “reasonable care” provides some level of protection to the software developer, this implies that they are following the stated purpose of the software and that they are not misrepresenting the project.

CSW
May 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620144786009700?thread_ts=1620144786.009700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2191

What you see publicly, the double-digit number of postgraduate degrees is not everything.

My record that comes through failure and repeatedly trying until I achieved the level that I’m now at is to be able to do more than ten masters degrees simultaneously at a full-time level and achieve a 3.7+ GPA on all of them.

This will come out in court.

Because I haven't disclosed everything yet, people will assume that I am lying

Here is the thing. I’m about to go into various court cases where this will be put to the test. I have no gain through saying this at this point if it is not valid. I have a hell of a lot of negatives that will come if it is a lie. And so, when I go into court, they can put this to the test as well. They can put my claim that I can do that level of study to the test and see if I will or will not validate it.

Of course, I will. And, I can wait. If they think that they can goad me into doing things ahead of the time I want to do them, they haven’t learned much about me yet.

CSW
May 5, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620197421057200?thread_ts=1620197421.057200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2201

CSW
May 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1620285528193700?thread_ts=1620285528.193700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2218

About P2P Cash system
Someone says:
"Simple, it means that the person that is receiving the payment is the one that has to broadcast the tx to get paid. If the tx is not broadcasted to be settled, the one that paid still has his money. Can't believe how the core narrative managed that you had to verify as the person who paid when in the real world, you never do that."

CSW:
And, a person will receive a cheque.

Do you call a bank first?

But, drug dealers do not use cheques. That is the issue.

They want a system outside of law.

And, some companies only do fortnightly or even monthly cheque runs...

If you tender a fake cheque, there are fraud laws. So, it is rare and there is a process. In small amounts, you can send and validate fast. 10 minutes vs 30 to 60 days for some banks - still

So, Bitcoin solves this with:
1. Law
2. 10 min settlement - so you can also in 1-2 seconds see if you are OK

Yes, I even stated that in the early Satoshi days. If it does not clear, do not send the goods.

The thing was Marrti, Ross and Micheal M started this Heroin store crap.

And, you cannot use courts to sell drugs.

confirmed is safe in most cases.

No, confirmed is safe in 99.99999999999999% of cases.

They are cash unless specifically stated to not be

CSW
Jul 23, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1563869289035500?thread_ts=1563869289.035500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2247

Just a little clarity to make sure people understand something.

The court cases do not relate to BSV.

They relate to bitcoin (BSV) and all unauthorised copies of my database equally.

What people fail to understand in saying that this is about BSV and gaining the kind is that I ever gain everything or nothing. If I am not able to prove my ownership in a British court of law I don't get BSV, I get nothing.

Equally, when I prove and I shall because I have all the records and the fun of being audited for many years is that I have these for many years right back from the beginning in an admissible forensics date, then BTC will need to add the required aspect of the White Paper that says the owner is verified and not the possessor.

There are no decentralised claims that will save any of the developers.

It's very simple. I have a lot of time to be able to go through all of this process and tear apart all of the lies one by one.

If a miner chooses not to follow the regulations, the laws,, the court order and all of the things that they need to do then it is very simple...

I will sequester their assets

I will go after the personal assets of many of the individuals involved

I will chase down the people whichever country they happen to be hiding in

I will take the physical mining equipment

I will take the facilities

and, I will do it at a discount

so, the eventual thing is people will implement this or they will find that they have nothing left to fight me with.

The interesting aspect of all of this is that my claim exceeds the value of all of the mining hardware everywhere, not just China, globally

So, it's very simple - either people follow the law or I will use the law utterly eradicate anyone who refuses to follow the law.

I think that makes things very clear doesn't it?

By the way, I may not be doing this in the Ethereum world but every single Blockchain that will ever exist, has ever existed and can ever exist is subject to the same form of order.

it should have happened a long time ago the reality here is the lies have slowed it

CSW
May 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621002342378500?thread_ts=1621002342.378500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2313

The only way and I will emphasise only that any Blockchain-based system will be able to exclude consumer rights and stop an individual from claiming ownership of lost assets and recovering these is to implement a waiver using a deed.

To do that would require that every individual on the system without fail expressly provides identity and ownership records for every transaction that is publicly available and searchable minimising the amount of privacy and forming not only a contract but a deed between themselves and the developers that allows any loss to occur without hope of recovery

any Blockchain and I mean any system that will ever be developed in the course of human history that implements a Blockchain is recoverable following a court order

this is not just BTC, it is not just Ethereum it is anything

(The Wyoming bitcoin/banking legislation)
irrelevant the legislation has nothing to do with bitcoin or any related system and it is focused on technology from the nineties without understanding what the Flick they were supposed to be writing about because they listen to idiots

it has relevant as legislation to do with boats that is written to cover trucks

if you receive bitcoin without notice and you maintain all of the transaction records it is covered as cash which means it is yours

if you receive bitcoin from an exchange the bank, a.k.a. exchange, is liable

the requirements here DO cover stolen goods just as they have always done in the last 300 years

if you use a mixer you lose all your money

the entire aspect of what you're missing is that this is not in exchange for value it is a mixer

the law is very very clear here, you're not buying goods and services you are mixing your money and if you mix your money you have no rights to anything that is illegally obtained

you are not a merchant, you are not getting money from one

CSW
May 15, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621086642425000?thread_ts=1621086642.425000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2320

CSW
Feb 27, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1582799708005100?thread_ts=1582725831.383400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2326

You cannot receive US$100,000 in good faith without customer due diligence. The part you're missing @bingledack is good faith. It is not just good consideration and it is not without knowledge. Money received must be received in good faith. To be received in good faith, for an amount over the KYC and customer due diligence amounts requires that you have full identity checking. This means you need to know the identity of the individual is received from and they need to know it as well. SPV was created to allow this. When you hand the received transaction and inputs you received you can also prove good receipt.

In the case of the bank, that becomes a tortious action against the bank. You don't receive cash when you sell your house. What happens is a deposit goes via lawyers into banks. Where the bank does not do their due diligence, they will lose out.

The alert key that I created for bitcoin allowed individual addresses to be frozen. That wasn't adequate but was a start. What needs to occur is individual unity exposed need to be frozen and not addresses. I should have seen the silly way people were using addresses already in 2010 but I didn't. Basically, bitcoin provides a methodology that will allow very quick freezing order application to be applied. When bitcoin is used in small quantities, and we're talking here around tens, of hundreds or thousands of dollars maximum, or micro payments there is no problem. When used as cash, bitcoin works as money perfectly.
The difficulties that people see come with this idea that bitcoin is a store of value and settlement system for rich people to move money without tax. The could not be further from the truth.

If you don't like tax, move to a country that doesn't have any.

If an exchange as a money handler accepts bitcoin as money, mostly they do this as a barter arrangement right now, then it will be liable for any of the losses. If your stolen money is deposited into Kraken then Kraken is completely liable for all of the losses associated with it. As a fungible good, this will be covered under mixing rules.

And yes, KYC applies at the time you received money or goods. So if you receive bitcoin now at $240 a bitcoin and you do in exchange for 10 bitcoin not requiring full KYC and a year later your BSV is valued at US$3000, even though the current value in a years time is US$30,000 and above the limit the test was at the time of the exchange for value.

And, there are limitations with recovery in any event. Some amounts on property will not end, but other actions have to be formed earlier on. It is also a reason to register property. Hiding your property from tax officials means that you can be in a position where you are out law and unable to take action.

CSW
Feb 27, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1582799708005100?thread_ts=1582725831.383400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2326

You cannot receive US$100,000 in good faith without customer due diligence. The part you're missing @.......ack is good faith. It is not just good consideration and it is not without knowledge. Money received must be received in good faith. To be received in good faith, for an amount over the KYC and customer due diligence amounts requires that you have full identity checking. This means you need to know the identity of the individual is received from and they need to know it as well. SPV was created to allow this. When you hand the received transaction and inputs you received you can also prove good receipt.

In the case of the bank, that becomes a tortious action against the bank. You don't receive cash when you sell your house. What happens is a deposit goes via lawyers into banks. Where the bank does not do their due diligence, they will lose out.

The Alert key that I created for bitcoin allowed individual addresses to be frozen. That wasn't adequate but was a start. What needs to occur is individual unity exposed need to be frozen and not addresses. I should have seen the silly way people were using addresses already in 2010 but I didn't. Basically, bitcoin provides a methodology that will allow very quick freezing order application to be applied. When bitcoin is used in small quantities, and we're talking here around tens, of hundreds or thousands of dollars maximum, or micro payments there is no problem. When used as cash, bitcoin works as money perfectly.
The difficulties that people see come with this idea that bitcoin is a store of value and settlement system for rich people to move money without tax. The could not be further from the truth.

If you don't like tax, move to a country that doesn't have any.

If an exchange as a money handler accepts bitcoin as money, mostly they do this as a barter arrangement right now, then it will be liable for any of the losses. If your stolen money is deposited into Kraken then Kraken is completely liable for all of the losses associated with it. As a fungible good, this will be covered under mixing rules.

And yes, KYC applies at the time you received money or goods. So if you receive bitcoin now at $240 a bitcoin and you do in exchange for 10 bitcoin not requiring full KYC and a year later your BSV is valued at US$3000, even though the current value in a years time is US$30,000 and above the limit the test was at the time of the exchange for value.

And, there are limitations with recovery in any event. Some amounts on property will not end, but other actions have to be formed earlier on. It is also a reason to register property. Hiding your property from tax officials means that you can be in a position where you are out law and unable to take action.

CSW
Feb 27, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1582799708005100?thread_ts=1582725831.383400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2326

Miners are agents of the network.

They earn tokens both from the network (me) as a diminishing subsidy, and as fees from users. They accept payment (consideration) in exchange for the service the provide in registering the envelopes on their ledger. They are a notary.

The ledger is distributed to allow any node or user to read a copy and check the registration journal. Each node competes to gain the rights to earn the fees in notarizing the set of ledger entries in a block. Other nodes ensure that the nodes remain honest and will orphan bad or erroneous ledger submissions.

The greater the investment, the more right to write the entry in the ledger and to be paid by the network.

Nodes contract BOTH with the network (me) and individuals who want their transactions registered (the fees are the consideration for the verification and registration service).

Nodes use PoW to show skin in the game, they demonstrate that they have something to lose if they are dishonest.

The is, something that the court can seize if the node cheats or is dishonest.

Proof of Work means that a node is always large enough, has a big investment and hence a presence that is easily found.

It stops everyone being able to run a node. Only corporate groups can afford to run a node.

This means, they (a node) cannot escape law and regulations. A node that is dishonest can be sued, they can have assets seized. The security is economic through law.

So.
Nodes contract BOTH with the network (me) and the users of the system.

If a node Knowingly helps move a coin that is associated with money laundering, theft or other crimes, they are complicit. Nodes what do not blacklist certain tokens are themselves criminal groups.

CSW
Mar 5, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1583420301179600

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2329

CSW
mar 5, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1583425981182900?thread_ts=1583425981.182900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2331

My 2008 dissertation in law starting to make sense now?

Read it carefully. See IP2IP as the source of what bitcoin is really about. Read the payment intermediary section on sending cash without trust carefully.

Read page 28.

Proof of Work means nodes are *not* judgement proof. They can be located and they have assets that can be sequestered and seized.

Miners (nodes) are the solution to crime. A decentralized system that allows regulators to target the largest parties.

And, law ALWAYS catches up eventually.

Hash rate does not secure anything. More hash is not more secure. Once you are large enough, hash is not important unless you are a node as it determines your earnings.

PoW allows nodes to be found, to ensure that no small nodes exist. PoW is about killing Raspberry pi and UASF.

PoW is a signal. Hashes have never bern a security tool. They are at most, a component of a security protocol.

Miners do not solve hashes.

Miners validate and order transactions

CSW
mar 5, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1583425981182900?thread_ts=1583425981.182900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2331

17/04/2008
The Impact of Internet Intermediary Liability
90 Pages
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2953929

2/2
I have patents on 99.9% of components needed to make a blockchain work - so Bitcoin is not going away

The thing we need to do is stop all the negativity about what bitcoin will do to Fiat and government money. Not a single comment on that helps us. Every single time someone says bitcoin will destroy Fiat makes it more and more difficult for bitcoin to actually be used globally.

What we need to do is start building - boring every day businesses that use a ledger boring things like accounting, recordkeeping, notarisation, and even identity management.

In five years, there will not be a single cryptocurrency. They will be digital currencies and digital assets. Bitcoin is a digital asset and commodity. Digital currencies can be built on top of it.

A cryptocurrency is a system that seeks to act outside of the law. Bitcoin enables tracing, recovery and claiming. There is a concept in law called following, this is incredibly simple to achieve in bitcoin. Bitcoin allows tracing through mixtures because each token is fungible. Remember, one bitcoin is a collection of 100 million indivisible fungible tokens.

There are rules for following an tracing through mixtures. These are not new and have been around since the time of Rome.

Even using a mixing service does not save you, those using the service can expect to have their tokens taken because when you receive stolen goods, the property rights do not transfer to you.

Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency. BTC and BCH are cryptocurrencies.

There will not be digital gold. There is absolutely no reason to have digital gold in the world. Digital gold exist today. Gold is not a store of value, it is a speculative inflation hedge. To be a store of value it needs to have a currency peg to it. Gold was a store of value in the past but it isn't any more. The US dollar is a store of value in US dollar contracts because one US dollar remains equal to 1 US dollar. Gold was only a store of value when this was also the case. To be a store of value, you cannot have any increase or decrease. A store of value does not change in value.

Today, digital gold exists. It's called a tradable gold certificate.

So we don't need BTC as digital gold. The bull about being digital gold is a false narrative that it can be used in money-laundering, but even gold is covered under KYC rules

CSW
Mar 12, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584017323062900?thread_ts=1584017323.062900&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://www.tgoop.com/CSW_Slack/2345

Hash does not secure the network.

This crazy BTC bull shit that hash rate is the security mechanism is wrong. The proof of work hash rate calculation is an economic signal. It is a game theoretic process that allows miners to be recognised and for law to take action. It is how we keep miners honest.

CSW
Apr 9, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1586452690189500?thread_ts=1586448127.185400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://www.tgoop.com/c/1297083554/135